Wichert Akkerman wrote:
> On 12/29/09 16:25 , Martijn Faassen wrote:
>> Earlier this year we decided to refocus our efforts on the ZTK, a
>> leaner, meaner Zope 3 with a different focus, which has code that we
>> really use, no UI, and with cleaner dependencies.
> I feel a disconnect here. As I see it the ZTK is not a 'leaner, meaner 
> Zope 3'. Zope 3 is a modular application framework, while the ZTK is a 
> small framework that can be used to build applications or applications 
> frameworks. ZTK has no history since it never existed before (and still 
> is only vapourware since it has no releases nor a release manager), so 
> it does not have any backwards compatibility to worry about.

The sense of irony of you feeling a disconnect is rather strong here. I 
was the one who proposed the ZTK in the first place, remember?

> It seems that you want to have a 'ZTK+' which aims to be backwards 
> compatible with Zope 3 but is somehow not Zope 3 itself. That is 
> something that not everybody appears to be interested in judging by the 
> lack of progress on Zope 3 itself, but if you want to pursue that I do 
> not see any reason for you not to do that. But it should separate from 
> the ZTK.

I'm glad the message of what the ZTK is that I tried to spread so hard 
has arrived so well.

The ZTK wants to reduce responsibilities. One of the responsibilities 
you gain when you want to reduce responsibilities is to do this responsibly.



Zope-Dev maillist  -  Zope-Dev@zope.org
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - 
 https://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/zope )

Reply via email to